> > I just had a loooong discussion with Rusty on that subject, it's> > indeed a nasty one.> > Ah, he sucks another person into the "module unload" discussion. My> sympathies :)

Nah, I started it, since he is about 2 meters from me in theoffice, that isn't difficult :)

> I agree, it's a difficult problem to solve, and something we aren't> going to do for 2.6. That's one reason why module unload is its own> config option :)> > Anyway, Rusty's proposal of "never unload, just mark not used" and then> load a new copy into memory that he did during the OLS timeframe last> year sounds like the only sane way to get this completely correct, with> the trade off of never releasing memory.